28/07/2008

• My response to a Reformed Christian about crosses inside & outside of worship

  No, I believe that it would not be right (i.e, biblical) to use it to
  represent the Christian religion. The center of the Christian
  religion is Christ, and any representation of the Christian religion
  would be representing Christ though perhaps indirectly. There is no
  avoiding visibly representing the Christian religion without
  representing Christ. Also, most importantly, it goes back to the
  Regulative Principle and hence the sufficiency of Scripture as rule
  of faith and worship. If we can use the cross to represent the
  Christian religion (and Christ) to the world, then there must be
  warrant in Scripture either explicitly or by necessary inference.
  In Scripture, the only elements to represent the Christian religion
  (and Christ) are the visible Sacraments: Baptism and the Lord
  Supper, which are the Gospel set before our eyes. For that, we have
  Scriptural warrant; however, Scripture again sets forth how those
  Sacraments (and the signs/emblems in those Sacraments) are to be
  adminstered (when, by whom, and how). We don't have Scripture
  warrant apart from the administration of the Sacraments (by lawful
  ministers of God) to display such representative emblems willy-nilly
  to the world. Further we, are exhorted by Scripture to set our
  mines on things above, not on finite, corruptible things (eg,
  crosses, worldly treasure, etc.) below regardless of how "holy" or
  spiritiually significant they are. The word of the Gospel, its
  visible signs of the Sacraments, and its outward effect in our lives
  are the alone sufficent and alone biblicaly warranted means to
  represent the Chrisitian religion. We need no other means.
  
  Although the Reformers and their teaching are fallible and
  subordinate to Scripture, I don't think that in their godly lives or
  their congregation's lives one could find an example of their
  teaching or condoning the display of the Cross to represent the
  Christian religion.
  
  When I visited land of the Covenanters (the original Presbyterians)
  in 2006, I saw Glasgow Cathedral and other places where they tore
  down such symbols of Christ and Christianity to reform the Lord's
  Church back to pure, simple, Scriptural worship. I am sure that
  before such destruction of idols, there were both kinds of crosses
  (even the pagan celtic cross of my Papist and pagan Irish ancestors,
  the Papist non-empty cross, and the empty cross). They tore them
  down because it was not in accordance with or warranted by Scripture.
  
  To add to what Scripture warrants smacks of false religions (and
  especially the pride of sinful seeking to find positive signifance in
  his sinful state) especially Popery and Mormonism that always want to
  have a visible means apart from the Gospel and the Sacraments to
  represent Christ and Him Crucified.
  
  Therefore, my summary reason for not using the Cross for representing
  Christanity is that there is primarily no warrant in Scripture to do
  so and subordinate to Scripture, no evidence in the Reformers lives
  or teaching to condone such unwarranted practice. In other words,
  there is no evidence explicitly or by necessary inference to give
  warrant to such representative practice.
  
  If you think that there is Scriptural warrant to have the cross
  represent Chrstianity (and also therewith and inseparably, Christ),
  then please show us how Scripture would provide warrant.
  
  FCC&C,
  Whit _____
  Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), Communicant Member
  Washington Metropolis, DC
  

  • 22:36
  • 3 Comments